Parti 51 being relaunched in Quebec

Surprised no one posted this, considering the nature of this forum. Forum seems a bit dead, and I'm part of the problem due to not being active here, but I will try to rectify that. Anyways, I think the timing certainly is interesting for the party to relaunch, considering it happened after Trump won.

I would recommend any pro annexation enthusiast to get involved, either passively (through facebook/youtube likes etc) or more actively. Would also like to hear Alex's opinion on the current state of the party, and the mood there in QC.

Very interesting, thanks for catching this and sharing it, it had completely slipped by me I must admit! You're right, the place is in stasis to put it mildly, I think we're all busy getting about our personal lives and most of what needed saying has been hashed an rehashed a lot. But it's great to see others picking up where this was left off and running with it!

I'll find out what I can and get in touch with them if possible. The mood here is "a Trump shift in the air", whichever the next provincial government comes in, there is a good chance they will emulate a lot of what made Trump stand out in terms of clearcut policies aimed at deregulation. There is generally a mood of annoyance at Ottawa,

Trudeau is running this country into the ground (he's trying, we're not that easy to extinguish). But with the federal government expected to suddenly run massive deficits until at least 2055, a lot of people here are looking at options to unshackle ourselves from this economic precipice.. independence or annexation might make a comeback.

I'll certainly be happy to contribute if it happens to be something they can benefit from, and at least assist indirectly by maintaining this website for the purpose of continued debates and serious consideration!

Getting on with our lives indeed! This is a time for Canadians to seriously ruminate, reevaluate, plan, and follow through with sound action for the short, medium, and long term. Unfortunately, Canadians are pretty much left to their own devices in this most important endeavour. Canadians are going to have to provide their own leadership, period. It has always been the way since forever. Ottawa is far too comfortable with the status quo. Further to this, I think Ottawa behind the scenes is having a collective meltdown over the realization that the easy, smooth, well worn old route to de facto client state status leads to an untenable place, even for the few remaining middleweights in Confederation. On the upside, the more strain the system is placed under, the more people, esp. young Canadians approaching adulthood will turn their back on Ottawa for solutions. Look to yourselves for leadership young Canadians. Imo more and more young Canadians are banging the 70s waffle dust from their shoes, much to the chagrin of their horrified ancestors!

It is my opinion that the unfolding of current events has opened a gate of sorts for the USA. This is a similar gate to the one which presented itself to Canada on October 30, 1995. I hope it turns out well for the USA. Canada right now is an entity that has been crippled by this and other political events of the 1990s. Today, the whole political game in Canada is pretending none of this happened, and that everything is just fine.

Here is a segment from an interview with Mr. O'Leary:

I almost wish there were still wafflers on this forum. It would be fun to have them harping up about how O'Leary is Canada's antichrist, etc. :p Imo there is no comparison other than both of them being intelligent, successful businessmen.

If you watch it through to the end he had something interesting to say about supposedly core Canadian characteristics. Similar tendencies were being discussed way back in the 1960s when US war protestors temporarily emigrated to Canada. It had to do with the relatively brazen and brash political dialogue the dodgers imported with them, versus the relatively open minded, low key, and level headed approach of the Canadians of that era. Now, the flying off the handle shrill screeching approach is considered a core Canadian characteristic (that is, to be a foaming at the mouth Democrat shill) lol.

I think the problems for O'leary are that he is undoubtedly going to be compared endlessly to Trump. He won't get a break from it. In addition, he is going to attract some truther style people as well. I suppose you could say the same thing about Trudeau.

You see this is the problem with Canada striking out on its own to forge a new destiny. There is never going to be a break to comparisons with Big brother down south, there will be an endless peanut gallery to the Canadians who want to strike out on their own to forge a new destiny. One more checkbox on the join the US side of the balance sheet lol.

Thank you for listening while I rummaged around in the thought basement, so to speak.

Thank you for that. Interesting read. I don't think Mr. Wonderful will do anything but who knows. He'd probably be better than Trudeau.

Having a plebiscite, like the 1995 Quebec one you're talking about, would be unconstitutional and won't happen. A non binding referendum might be possible though, I would guess a fair amount of crazy liberals would wanna leave. However, no one is leaving the union without a civil war happening.

There's technically a lawful way to leave the America union: have a constitional amendment allowing a specific instance of it, or defining a mechanism that allows it. I suspect it would become in fact necessary to have such a defined mechanism should Canada join.. along with a mechanism for entering that ensures that regions retain some influence over acceptance or dismissal of new inclusions.

It is interesting that at the time, Chretien's government had no plan to deal with a yes vote. At the last minute, an order went out to fly C.F. aircraft from Quebec based squadrons to airports outside of Quebec. I never really researched this in detail. Should things have gone that way, Chretien would have put all Canadians in dilly of a pickle to say the least.

I didn't mean that separatist elements would start something above and beyond the current signal to noise ratio in the preexisting US separatist movements, but something deleterious that may manifest in another challenge to the republic. Already we are seeing how the Newsspeak war is manifesting. From what I have seen of it so far, it has the potential to be another means of waging war. You can destroy people through a concerted online shaming attack, usually the targets are obscure people, yet now it is being used in a well coordinated, very deniable fashion. Can anyone keep up with the whole fake news phenomenon?

I do agree that Article 4 of the US Constitution could and should be amended to allow for the peaceful way to leave the union something like super majority (2/3) of constituent, senate, and house voting and then signed by the president OR ratification by 3/4 of the states and then signed by the president would be acceptable to me . As of right now though. that's not in place and should the stupid ass #CalExit gain momentum, the most they could do is a non binding referendum using their own money.

I think its one of the things that will need to be ironed out to get the buy in from the silent majority on both sides of the 48th, we don't want corrupt politicians to socialize control over such decisions and impose inclusions that people rightfully resent or to allow members to leave on a whim either, or be kept against their willl with no room for any reasonable accomodation.

Okay and another update is that I linked up on Facebook with Hans, the founder of the ressurected party, in the coming months we'll have some discussions about his whole take on the idea and who knows right? I wouldn't mind running under that party's banner at all, I'd be happy to do so as a matter of fact. He brings a formal political presence for it.

But over the years, I assembled an impressive network of contacts that can truly provide impetus should the gear works start moving. There's definitely a lot to be said and done about this worthy project. Surely I prefer a whole Canada direct talks with the USA as opposed to a Quebec-only shift-over. But either way it will happen gracefully, if I have any role in any of it!

I think you could bring a lot to the table. And you, along with your contacts, could definitely spread the word and start getting momentum to the movement. You should actually try and be part of the team. Last time I checked, Hans was still ramping up on his team.

I agree, annexing all of Canada would be better than just Quebec, but we know that QC leaving would have a domino effect as well (IIRC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had some contingency plans to join the US if Quebec left in 1995). Speaking of which, learning from that as we go forward is imperative for a success story as we move along and gain momentum. I know us Americans can't really donate and whatnot, so let me know how we can help and make this happen from down here.

-MM- wrote:I do agree that Article 4 of the US Constitution could and should be amended to allow for the peaceful way to leave the union something like super majority (2/3) of constituent, senate, and house voting and then signed by the president OR ratification by 3/4 of the states and then signed by the president would be acceptable to me . As of right now though. that's not in place and should the stupid ass #CalExit gain momentum, the most they could do is a non binding referendum using their own money.

This would be an utterly pointless waste of millions of dollars, to bring such legislation. Armed rebellion would break out LONG before public-support could ever get anywhere even near that level.

It would be like "Baghdad Bob" (Saddam Huissein's press-secretary) declaring on public TV the American Army was nowhere near Baghdad, as the population of Baghdad were already observing tank-battles with their own eyes. Superfluous.

------------

As far as Cali splitting, I say let them try. The Federal Government isnt about to hand over their military bases there, and their State Police and National Guard are not powerful enough to take them forcably (even assuming their mostly-right -leaning personnel would be willimg to try).

The situation would quickly devolve into a West-Virginia style situation where all the counties not in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas would counter-split from Cali and re-join the US, sparking a mass-exidus from LA and the Bay Area as they quickly deteriorate into extensions of Latin America.

Fat Tony wrote:It is interesting that at the time, Chretien's government had no plan to deal with a yes vote. At the last minute, an order went out to fly C.F. aircraft from Quebec based squadrons to airports outside of Quebec. I never really researched this in detail. Should things have gone that way, Chretien would have put all Canadians in dilly of a pickle to say the least.

I didn't mean that separatist elements would start something above and beyond the current signal to noise ratio in the preexisting US separatist movements, but something deleterious that may manifest in another challenge to the republic. Already we are seeing how the Newsspeak war is manifesting. From what I have seen of it so far, it has the potential to be another means of waging war. You can destroy people through a concerted online shaming attack, usually the targets are obscure people, yet now it is being used in a well coordinated, very deniable fashion. Can anyone keep up with the whole fake news phenomenon?

I think that if Quebec had secured assurances from US officials the US would be cooperative with Quebec in the event of a split, the vote would have been yes instead of no. Even if only 5% of the "no" votes were due to fence-sitters who felt it was too risky, this would have aleviated much of their concern. But therin lies the catch-22... US would need permission from Canada to even have the discussion publicly with Quebec without first having a "Yes" vote. (Although the US and its NATO Allies recognizing splits in Yugoslavia, and Russia endorsing splits in Georgia and Ukrain has somewhat changed the International precedent since the mid-nineties.)

In fact, Bill Clinton actually piped up a few times stating his vision was more one of NAFTA evolving into an EU style system in North America (thus implying opposition to Canada sub-dividing and/or more political union with the US.)

Canada seems (currently) to want to preserve NAFTA as a bilateral agreement, as the US is expected to push Mexico out. People seem to forget that Mexico was included originally partly as a concession to Canadian leaders comcerned NAFTA would swollow Canada completely into the belly of the US economy.

People like Can. Conservative party leadership hopeful Erin O'Toole and ousted Aus, PM Tony Abbot (Shame on you, Malcolm Turnbull) seem to be on board, but this idea should be made a part of the platforms of thoughtful political parties in all of the CANZUK countries.

Of course, the US could get involved, but that would depend on the new US President having the intellect and the vision to recognize that, properly constructed, a "United States of the World" would make all of us safer, richer, and help "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Imagine, Donald J. Trump - a latter-day Founding Father -